refugiums
- Thread starter bmullikin1
- Start date
WarDaddy
New member
I have a refugium that grows cheato like MAD. I took ball that filled a 3 gallon bucket out a week ago. That is a TON of excess nutrients that I just exported from my system that would have been suspended in the water had I not provided the space for the cheato to grow, no?
A refugium can very well be a great exporter of nutrients.
To speak to Mike's point about feeding his Tangs the algae he is growing. Is it not better to feed the tangs the algae he grows than to solely rely on Nori, which would be importing more phosphate into the system? While Mike might be moving his phosphate from the water column to the algae to the fish to the water and back to the algae again, is that cycle not better than constantly adding more phosphate in terms of prepared food from outside th tank? PLUS, there has to be a net decrease in that cycle as well. The fish is growing, so there is a net loss of phosphate in the tank as a result of that cycle.
Now he is adding phosphate in the other fish foods, but his algae cycle is doing wonders in having at leas a small reduction.
I would venture to guess that the filter sock catching diatoms and the export there has to be a good remover of phosphates as well. Time will tell, but a time bomb is not how I would describe Mike's system.
wow that was wordy...
A refugium can very well be a great exporter of nutrients.
To speak to Mike's point about feeding his Tangs the algae he is growing. Is it not better to feed the tangs the algae he grows than to solely rely on Nori, which would be importing more phosphate into the system? While Mike might be moving his phosphate from the water column to the algae to the fish to the water and back to the algae again, is that cycle not better than constantly adding more phosphate in terms of prepared food from outside th tank? PLUS, there has to be a net decrease in that cycle as well. The fish is growing, so there is a net loss of phosphate in the tank as a result of that cycle.
Now he is adding phosphate in the other fish foods, but his algae cycle is doing wonders in having at leas a small reduction.
I would venture to guess that the filter sock catching diatoms and the export there has to be a good remover of phosphates as well. Time will tell, but a time bomb is not how I would describe Mike's system.
wow that was wordy...
gwaco
New member
if you want to have fish , then you are correct ! we have to accept the fact that adding food ,will add phosphates to the tank , can't get around that .you want phosphates to be limited . adding any source back to the tank is not limiting .
if your growing these big cheato balls , what is that telling you ?
if you have to run a fuge loaded with cheato and run a gfo reactor , what is that telling you ?
sorry , but i don't see why everyone is so in love with water fleas ! they provide what amounts to nothing in nutritional value , don't serve any purpose in the tanks except to eat dirt , poop , and make more fleas , all which (except make more ) can be done way more efficiently with a siphon hose and a skimmer .
if your growing these big cheato balls , what is that telling you ?
if you have to run a fuge loaded with cheato and run a gfo reactor , what is that telling you ?
sorry , but i don't see why everyone is so in love with water fleas ! they provide what amounts to nothing in nutritional value , don't serve any purpose in the tanks except to eat dirt , poop , and make more fleas , all which (except make more ) can be done way more efficiently with a siphon hose and a skimmer .
gwaco
New member
quote// ( I have a refugium that grows cheato like MAD. I took ball that filled a 3 gallon bucket out a week ago. That is a TON of excess nutrients that I just exported from my system that would have been suspended in the water had I not provided the space for the cheato to grow, no? )
sounds to me like a roller coaster ride of nutrient control .
sounds to me like a roller coaster ride of nutrient control .
gwaco
New member
if you don't feed them then they will just die off !<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11312827#post11312827 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by plc001
Uhh, Uhh I know, I know:
Do not feed the tank, no phosphates in, no need to take out.
Now, how I am going to get all my pods out?????
gwaco
New member
quote//( To speak to Mike's point about feeding his Tangs the algae he is growing. Is it not better to feed the tangs the algae he grows than to solely rely on Nori, )
soak the nori in r.o. water for a few minutes before feeding . most of the production phosphate will be released . its not organic .
soak the nori in r.o. water for a few minutes before feeding . most of the production phosphate will be released . its not organic .
triggerfish1976
New member
Well since no one wants to play my game I will just get to the point.
This is how I hoped it would have went:
Pro-Refugium hobbyist: I choose a) because I don't want the fish rotting and releasing a large amount of nutrients in the tank in the form of ammonia and phosphates.
Triggerfish1976: Good choice but if consumed phosphates just get transferred to energy fueling the growth of the fish and basically "cycle" out of the tank then why would the fish release ammonia and phosphates into the tank when it dies.
Refugium loving hobbyist: ?
triggerfish1976: Because the small amount of phosphates that were continually being stored in the fish never went anywhere and stayed in the fish in the form of growth and mass thus creating a larger bio mass that would have to breakdown in the tank if it dies. As the fish grew its phosphate footprint also grew until it died and released the phosphates back into the tank.
Now take the scenario I just laid out and apply it to clean up crews, pods, and algae. All of these basically go through the same cycle but on different levels of the food chain but for some reason many hobbyists do not remove dying or dead snails or they do not throw away pruned algae thus allowing all of the phosphates that they removed to go back into the tank. As the "waste" goes through the various cycles it continues to release the same amount of phosphates so you are never getting rid of the source so why wait for all of the various levels to do their biological thing when you can just get rid of it shortly after it goes in.
Daddyjax brings up a common argument when discussing the benefit of using algae and clean up crews and that is they help break down nutrients to make it more efficient for the bacteria to process and then be removed by a skimmer.
I tend to find fault in this because If this was an efficient filtration method then why has filter socks, water changes, high flow, and BB tanks become a more favorable method by coral keepers. We do the later because it is more efficient at removing waste before it has a chance to start decomposing
rather then allow waste to settle in a tank long enough to break down and provide food for the crabs and snails.
This is how I hoped it would have went:
Pro-Refugium hobbyist: I choose a) because I don't want the fish rotting and releasing a large amount of nutrients in the tank in the form of ammonia and phosphates.
Triggerfish1976: Good choice but if consumed phosphates just get transferred to energy fueling the growth of the fish and basically "cycle" out of the tank then why would the fish release ammonia and phosphates into the tank when it dies.
Refugium loving hobbyist: ?
triggerfish1976: Because the small amount of phosphates that were continually being stored in the fish never went anywhere and stayed in the fish in the form of growth and mass thus creating a larger bio mass that would have to breakdown in the tank if it dies. As the fish grew its phosphate footprint also grew until it died and released the phosphates back into the tank.
Now take the scenario I just laid out and apply it to clean up crews, pods, and algae. All of these basically go through the same cycle but on different levels of the food chain but for some reason many hobbyists do not remove dying or dead snails or they do not throw away pruned algae thus allowing all of the phosphates that they removed to go back into the tank. As the "waste" goes through the various cycles it continues to release the same amount of phosphates so you are never getting rid of the source so why wait for all of the various levels to do their biological thing when you can just get rid of it shortly after it goes in.
Daddyjax brings up a common argument when discussing the benefit of using algae and clean up crews and that is they help break down nutrients to make it more efficient for the bacteria to process and then be removed by a skimmer.
I tend to find fault in this because If this was an efficient filtration method then why has filter socks, water changes, high flow, and BB tanks become a more favorable method by coral keepers. We do the later because it is more efficient at removing waste before it has a chance to start decomposing
rather then allow waste to settle in a tank long enough to break down and provide food for the crabs and snails.
triggerfish1976
New member
Phosphates.
triggerfish1976
New member
Phosphates generally start out as organic but then break down into inorganic orthophosphate.
Organics are generally what is removed via skimming but once they become inorganic it becomes more problematic. That is why it is more important to remove any excess waste and food before it has a chance to break down further.
To answer your question about Nori: If we kept our tanks at low enough phosphate levels (organic and inorganic) we would not be able to grow enough macro algae to sustain a tang so Nori is needed.
If you can grow enough algae to sustain a tang without feeding it anything else then you have a phosphate problems.
Organics are generally what is removed via skimming but once they become inorganic it becomes more problematic. That is why it is more important to remove any excess waste and food before it has a chance to break down further.
To answer your question about Nori: If we kept our tanks at low enough phosphate levels (organic and inorganic) we would not be able to grow enough macro algae to sustain a tang so Nori is needed.
If you can grow enough algae to sustain a tang without feeding it anything else then you have a phosphate problems.
gwaco
New member
quote// ( Well since no one wants to play my game I will just get to the point.
This is how I hoped it would have went:
Pro-Refugium hobbyist: I choose a) because I don't want the fish rotting and releasing a large amount of nutrients in the tank in the form of ammonia and phosphates.
Triggerfish1976: Good choice but if consumed phosphates just get transferred to energy fueling the growth of the fish and basically "cycle" out of the tank then why would the fish release ammonia and phosphates into the tank when it dies.)
if this is the tang in your previous post , the correct answer should would be - i'll just leave it there , let it decompose and skim out the big fat bacteria population !
This is how I hoped it would have went:
Pro-Refugium hobbyist: I choose a) because I don't want the fish rotting and releasing a large amount of nutrients in the tank in the form of ammonia and phosphates.
Triggerfish1976: Good choice but if consumed phosphates just get transferred to energy fueling the growth of the fish and basically "cycle" out of the tank then why would the fish release ammonia and phosphates into the tank when it dies.)
if this is the tang in your previous post , the correct answer should would be - i'll just leave it there , let it decompose and skim out the big fat bacteria population !
gwaco
New member
very nice
!nori - seaweed is not grow in tanks , it grows in the ocean (no duh , right ! ) but phosphate is limited there , so the actual seaweed is not as phosphate laidend as you think ! its the processing for human consumption that makes it become phosphate laidend . for kicks google phosphates in food processing :eek1: !
gwaco
New member
heres where i have a problem ! yes there are correct ways to run a tank as there are incorrect ways to run a tank ! unfortunatly people tend to go with the masses (best term i've heard is Reefing by Consensus<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11312872#post11312872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WarDaddy
That is the beauty of the hobby, no way is the correct way. Every tank is unique! A siphon in my main is not my idea of a great time on Saturday. I'll take pods, cheato, snails and what ever to avoid having to siphon my main tank. But that is just me
) not many actually research out the " best" methods for the creatures they want to keep , its more like blender mush ! if you have to have sand or your tank is not a slice of the ocean , than research critters from a more eutrophic lagoonal setting , if you want to emulate a reef crest , then set up your system for a reef crest ! don't combine both into one tank and expect all to prosper !
DaddyJax
New member
Here is some great info on macroalgae and Phosphates in the aquarium http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php
The growth and removal of macro is the key to a successful fuge in using it for removal of organic and inorganic PO4. The article also goes into the bacteria consumption of PO4 along with mechanical means of removal. The mechanical means of removal is said to only remove organics and the combination of the bacteria and skimmer is a formidable combination with the macro as clean up!
For me it is a way to increase the pod population and remove PO4 along with just being cool to have and watch all the life forms.
The growth and removal of macro is the key to a successful fuge in using it for removal of organic and inorganic PO4. The article also goes into the bacteria consumption of PO4 along with mechanical means of removal. The mechanical means of removal is said to only remove organics and the combination of the bacteria and skimmer is a formidable combination with the macro as clean up!
For me it is a way to increase the pod population and remove PO4 along with just being cool to have and watch all the life forms.
